Needed: An Eisenhower for the new millennium

MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW

MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW

December 06, 2006|JOHN SOARES

Now that the midterm elections are over and serious speculation about the 2008 presidential election is already beginning, Americans should start looking in earnest for another Ike. This is not a plea for a genial, geriatric golfer but for a president who can win broad popular support in a time of bitter partisan division, produce balanced budgets and credibly protect from threats both to the nation's physical security and our freedoms. We face a situation today that is similar to the early 1950s. Just as the initial Cold War consensus crumbled over Korea, the sense of national unity after 9/11 shattered over Iraq. Partisan divisions seem especially bitter today, but may be no worse than in the days when Joseph McCarthy's reckless allegations were taken seriously and children who repeated "Harry Trumanisms" had their mouths washed out with soap. Against this backdrop of bitterness and fear, Dwight D. Eisenhower won two elections by wide margins. He did so as the GOP standard-bearer at a time when registered Democrats substantially outnumbered Republicans. Eisenhower was not only a unifying force, but possessed a fiscal responsibility we need today. He did not view budget deficits as an item of accounting trivia, but as a threat to the nation's long-term economic health. As a career military man and hero of World War II, he did not have to use military spending to prove his "toughness." His experience gave him a good sense of where cuts in defense spending could be made safely. And his credibility went beyond budget issues: He resisted considerable pressure in 1954 to join the French war in Vietnam. He subsequently kept the number of Americans in South Vietnam within the limits imposed by the Geneva Accords. This may not seem like much to brag about, but it was significantly better than the mess his successors made of the situation. A president who, like Eisenhower, combined restraint and credibility would be especially important in a post-9/11 world. We are understandably worried about security but we must remember that this means more than physical protection. Today, as during Eisenhower's presidency, we have to be careful that we do not give away cherished freedoms in the quest for physical safety. Our next president needs Eisenhower's understanding that the job requires defense of "a way of life" as well as territory and lives. Terrorists are unlikely to militarily defeat and conquer the United States, or to obtain a Soviet-sized nuclear arsenal that could literally wipe the entire United States off the face of the earth in a matter of minutes. Although we are likely to suffer additional terrorist attacks, the United States as we know it will survive unless we decide to forego our defining freedoms in the expectation of greater safety. Eisenhower understood that this was a poor trade; he was determined to keep us both secure and free. To praise these characteristics of Eisenhower is not to say that the United States needs a Republican, a military figure or even a man in the White House. If we are wise and fortunate, though, our next president will have Eisenhower's ability to overcome partisan divisions, unify the nation, balance budgets and credibly defend both our lives and our way of life. John Soares teaches history, including the history of U.S. national security policy, at the University of Notre Dame.